Thus far, it’s safe to say both candidates have avoided any game-changing gaffes, and neither has emerged a clear, consensus winner.

However for both Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren, more questions remain unanswered, with less and less time to directly address them.

For example, what specific new legislation will either candidate introduce that might significantly spur new jobs?

In two debates, Brown and Warren have been asked a grand total of exactly one question on foreign policy.

And it was sadly ironic to be debating at a university, yet never asked how they might try to lower the crushing financial burden of higher education. It is not our place to declare a winner, although the main beneficiaries from Monday night are UMass Lowell, the state’s voters, and the institution of political debates themselves.

The Brown-Warren debates have led to several revealing, even riveting exchanges, underscoring just how vital and indispensable live events remain in to our democratic process.

In this age of Super Pacs, robo-calls, and relentless attack ads, there is still no substitute for the simple, one-on-one televised public debate.

That’s a message all candidates should approve of, and moderators ought to embrace, demanding more substantial dialogue in their remaining debates.

Lawyers for Boston Marathon bomber Dzkokhar Tsarnaev rested their case in his federal death penalty trial Tuesday after presenting a brief case aimed at showing his late older brother was the mastermind of the 2013 terror attack.